20/01/2014 Newsnight


The Lib Dems in a mess over Lord Rennard, the UN in a mess over Syria, spaceships chasing comets, and cafés that charge by the minute. With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



He certainly is not a household name, but the Liberal Democrats


failure to deal effectively with allegations against the party's


former chief executive are making it a laughing stock.


Here is a quick reminder of how the party's organised. Is it any


surprise it is in such a mess? Better to have a party of democrats


than dictators the Lib Dems tell me. When your entire leadership


structure looks like spaghetti, perhaps it is time for change.


First Iran was invited to the UN peace talks, then it got disinvited.


If he's so crucial to peace in Syria, where the clumsy


backpeddling. And... Ladies and gentlemen it looks


like we have a signal, looks like Rosetta has indeed woken up.


So the 500 million miles wake-up call works. Will Rosetta's space


mission tell us anything useful? The presenter of the Sky At Night


believes so, at least. Well, unless you have the misfortune


to be a Liberal Democrat, the sorry saga of Lord Rennard, the party


inquiry and the unissued apology is the gift that goes on giving. Sleazy


behaviour in an organisation built on piety, inept procedures, confused


leadership, embarrassment and bad feeling within the party.


Shaweden fraud everywhere else, Lord Rennard issued a very long statement


saying among other things that he hadn't even been allowed to see the


report into accusations that he sexually harassed fellow party


members. Is it any way to run a party. When I meet people around the


country it is obvious that many of you have strong and mixed


reactions... . Nick Clegg did know how to say sorry, he did it in a


video which some kind soul set to music lest anyone forget the lyrics.


# I'm sorry # I'm sorry


This morning he called on the party's former chief executive, Lord


Rennard, to do the same, not for failing on promises, but of claims


several activists have made of unwanted sexual advances.


Today we looked everywhere for Lord Rennard, to no avail. As the day


progressed it appeared an apology was not forth coming. Earlier this


afternoon his suspension from the party was announced, spending a


further inquiry into his -- pending a further inquiry into his past


actions. He released a lengthy statement. He repeated his denial of


the distress for the women. And said he regretted any embarrassment or


hurt or upset he caused. But he did not want to apologise fearing future


civil action. Plus he said he didn't believe people should be forced to


say things they do not mean. Support from that from friends in


the Lords at the weekend. Comparing Nick Clegg of this. The North Korean


judicial system looking benign. Some have spotted a problem with the


analogy. The North Korean hierarchy looks like this and the structure of


the Lib Dems' hierarchy looks like this. Nick Clegg, curiously up here


in the left top corner has said it is unacceptable for Lord Rennard to


carry on in the Lords you without a fulsome apology. Lord Rennard who


sits on the Lords and place on the Federal Policy Committee, has made


it clear he won't. Under the Lib Dem party structure Nick Clegg can't


remove the whip, only the Lib Dem leader of the Lords can. Even then


he can be overturned by a vote from peers. Now Lord Rennard's suspension


today was at the hands of the regional parties commission which


doesn't seem to be on here. Everyone got that? Shaun Kemp, the Deputy


Prime Minister's former special adviser, tells me the slightly


arcane structure has served them well in the past, on coalition


negotiations for example. But... It strikes me there is another side to


the coin, that is the good thing of the level of accountability and


democracy. Where you have a situation where the


democratically-elected leader of the party can't even remove the whip


from a member of his own party in the House of Lords without


potentionally facing a vote in the House of Lords from the unelected


colleagues of that person, then I think we do have to ask some


questions about is that structure set up in the right way? Is it set


up in a way that is good practice or politics? Would the answer to that


question be, questionings definitely not"? I think there has to be a way


that a party can preserve what is good about the checks and balances


and democracy. But we have to let the party leader, elected by all


members, to owe cruellyly take quick decisions when in the best interests


of the party. Close friends of Lord Rennard say he sees himself as a


hero of the party, and feels persecuted by what he would call "an


unfair line of attack". He talks in his statement of a smear campaign


against him. Interestingly he thanks his friends in the Lords for their


support, he suggests they should let the matter rest. An indication that


their swords have not always been helpful to him? I'm not sure anyone


has done the process any favour over the weekend. We should have had a


period of calm reflection. The disciplinary procedure had been gone


through, recommendations had been made. And time should have been


taken to allow those recommendations to be implemented. Rather than trial


by media. There is, of course, a very human


face to this strategy, the man who brought the Liberal Democrats


victory after victory for decade, now says he's considering legal


action against his own party. In North Korea they faced down that


behaviour with wild dogs. The Liberal Democrats, well as you have


heard, they prefer another inquiry. With us now from Norwich is Bridget


hare risks one of the women who complained about Lord Rennard, also


here is Lord Greaves, a senior Lib Dem member of the House of Lords. We


asked for someone to speak on behalf of the Lib Dem leadership, but it


took them nine hours and at the end of that time they were unable to


offer us anyone Bridge Bridget Harris, Lord Rennard


says he can't issue an apology for fear of you and others might sue?


Obviously I can't answer that question, it clearly depends on all


the circumstances. Yes you can, if he said sorry would you sue? What I


could say is I'm happy to accept on a personal level his apology. If


he's willing to take responsibility for his actions. But the real


absent. He can't say sorry because it is admitting something for which


you, you say, or imply, clearly might sue him? Well of course, there


we are. That is the conundrum that we face. We have never had a proper


disciplinary procedure or investigation that has been able to


question or investigate or indeed even cross-examine the evidence that


both myself and the other women and also Lord Rennard has put forward.


All we have had is investigations to have found them to be credible, that


what myself and the other women have said is believable. Nobody over the


last 11 months has questioned anything we have said. The problem


is the Liberal Democrats manifestly failed over a period of ten years to


investigate these allegations and complaints, in the way that any


other normal organisation or work place discrimination procedure would


have done. Lord Greaves, how much damage is this doing to the party?


It is doing a lot of damage. It is getting worse by the day. It was bad


enough yesterday, it last got worse with everything that's happened


today. Quite frankly, the party has got to take action to stop it


getting worse and then start getting better. It has tried to do that by


telling Lord Rennard he should apologise? The problem is, I don't


want to go into the details of all of that, which have been analysed


hugely in the media. But the real problem, I think, is that the


leadership of the party, broadly defined, not just Nick Clegg, have


taken action which actually has rebounded and made matters worse.


That's incompetent leadership. I think the advice that they have been


getting, for example, when the report was first issued it was


obviously that there had to be a news management strategy by people


in the party. It was a difficult issue. That should have been a joint


strategy between the leadership and Lord Rennard. They failed hopelessly


to do that. Everything that has happened has created more stress in


the party, more uproar in different parts of the party. So what we have


now got is two different factions, if you like in the party, two groups


of people who are approaching this from completely different angles and


who increasingly are falling out with each other. They are simply


chucking missiles at each other and now we're being told that Lord


Rennard may be taking legal action, bridge get Harris says she may be


taking legal action. This is a nightmare. The decision today to


suspend Lord Rennard and have a new disciplinary procedure is likely


take several months. There is a whole series of timebombs being laid


for the future where legal action, legal action, a new inquiry that


will report perhaps a few weeks, or very soon before the next round of


elections. It is nonsense. What the party really has to do now is to get


a grip on this and set up a reconciliation and mediation system


to bring the two sides together, start them talking and work towards


whatever levels of agreement that can be reached. That is a very


Liberal Democrat solution? It is not, on a much grander scale it


happened in South Africa. It got Ian Paisley sitting down with people he


would never have. That is the process that now should take place.


Bridget do you worry about the damage this is doing to your party?


Yes, obviously in many ways. But I think that is one of the core


problems. The way that Lord Greaves described it, I think the colloquial


expression would be "we don't wash our dirty linen in public". As he


has rightly said it causes a lot of damage, it is horrible to see all


the infighting, why not all shut up and deal with it behind closed


doors. That is the very tactic they took over ten years to try to deal


with. If they tried to deal with the allegations the women were making


behind closed doors, through informal processes, trying to get


everyone to informally and quietly and privately say sorry and work it


all out between them and find some redress. The consequence of that was


nobody in the party actually in recent times were aware of the fact


that these galeses surrounded Lord Rennard. He was becoming --


allegations surrounded Lord Rennard, and he was becoming more and more


involved in the party and being invited to gender-balanced weekends


for the party. That was worrying the women. When you don't deal with the


process according to fair and straight forward rules. This is all


in the past, we can argue about the past over ten years and over the


past year, we can argue about the last few days. The problem is we are


where we are now, and the party is in a dreadful state. Therefore we


have to take it from where we are now and set up a process, which


would be inclusive, which would be completely inclusive, but where the


different people and the different sides of the party start to work


together again. We are all supposed to be liberal, Liberal Democrats. At


the moment increasingly we are all falling out with the people who are


supposed to be our colleagues and our comrades in arms. Just engage


with that Bridget Harris? I would like to, directly. We are not all


friends and colleagues when actually one of us is accused of sexual


harassment, that is something where myself and other women are perfectly


entitled to take forward a complaint. I don't see why party


loyalty should come into it. I'm perfectly loyal to Liberal Democrats


and the policies and the coalition and the Government. I'm perfectly


loyal to the liberal cause. Why what I don't see why I'm responsible for


or loyal to is when somebody absolutely inappropriately tries to


take advantage of their power position or nor do I believe it is


very fair for other people. We have heard you saying this over again and


we are where we are, we understand the arguments. I'm not talking about


Lord Rennard in particular, I'm talking about the fact that people I


have worked with and campaigned with thought well up the 50 years are


falling out in droves and are getting very angry with each other


in a way which unless it is solved and sorted out, which will take some


time, but unless it is sorted out it is going to produce fault lines and


schisms in the party which will last for years. Thank you both very much.


I will have to cut you off there. Thank you very much. Coming up:


Last night the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, invited Iran to talks


supposed to move Syria towards an end of its Civil War. When some of


the Syrian opposition discovered that he had failed to get Iran's


agreement to what's already been determined, they developed cold


feet. So the world's most senior public servant spent much of the day


ducking and diving to avoid explaining how he had managed to


make such a Horlicks of what is supposed to be such an important and


carefully thought-through peace conference. Tonight? Tonight a


little over an hour ago he withdrew the invitation to Iran.


This is a real shambles isn't it? It looks like diplomatic attempt to


bounce Iran into these talks, it has gone horribly wrong. When Ki-Moon


announced this unexpectedly on Sunday night, there was an immediate


reaction from the sane Syrian opposition group, and the Syrian


national opposition, who said hang on, this wasn't what we agreed. Iran


one of President Assad's Mainz backers. The same came out of the


state department the following morning. What followed, as you said,


was ducking and diving, and then this uninvited. At issue was the


Geneva communique of 2012, which was the basis for these talks on Friday.


Which essentially calls for a negotiated transition of power in


Sirria. To western powers, US and Britain included, means without


President Assad. It seems that Ban Ki-Moon thought he had an agreement


from the Iranians that they would recognise that basis. It seems he


was wrong. That led to this uninvite. The question is how many


people were on board? I have spoken tonight to a senior US official who


said the Americans were on board all the way until the Iranians did what


seems to be an about-face. The talk seemed to be saved, the Syrian


National Coalition which had to be strong armed into going say they are


going now and it is a huge who blah to the United Nations -- blow to the


United Nations. What next? The talks will happen but it is questionable


whether we are closer or better off this evening after this Iranian


invite and uninvite than we were before we happened. The man


conducting the negotiations will be sitting in a room with one group of


people who don't accept the premise of a negotiated transfer without


President Assad, that is the Syrian Government. The other group of


people who are the Syrian National Coalition who don't represent the


fighters doing the war on the ground. Diplomats have been playing


down expectations of what can come out of this. They are saying it is a


start, the beginning of a process, what we might see best case


scenario, some very small negotiated solutions to local ceasefires to get


aid in. In a war that has produced much horror, there was further


horror this evening? Yes, we saw a cachet of pictures. We can show you


one of them now that you will almost certainly find disturbing. It is one


of more than 50,000 images that have come out in a report tonight. The


authors of the report say show systematic abuse and killing of


detainees in Syria's jails. I should say the report was commissioned by


Qatar, which is participant in the war, it is supporting some of the


Syrian opposition groups. It has been put together by a London firm


of lawyers. But it has also been showed to some very eminent


international lawyers and some forensic experts. It shows mostly


pictures of young men, emaciated, apparently starved to death, many of


them, their bodies showing signs of torture, strangulation and the like.


The report says they were taken by a military policeman working for the


Syrian regime between March 2011, and right at the beginning of the


protest and last August. The report's author said they have made


them available to the United Nations and human rights groups and the


lawyers who examined them say this brings up the possibility of human


rights charges. But I think the emotional impact these pictures have


make it possible, they might become a totemic emotional rallying cry for


international opinion. Joining us from Washington is PJ Crawley,


former US Secretary of State, with us is the former Editor in Chief of


for Foreign Followcy Magazine. Let's talk a little bit about this


invitation and withdrawal of invitation. It does look


extraordinarily inept, doesn't it? I think what Ban Ki-Moon ultimately


faced was two unresolvable situations under the current set of


circumstances. I think it is any diplomatic process involving Syria,


Iran has to be part of the process other it will try to undermine the


process from outside. What he was forced to do today is avoid void the


total collapse of the process before it began. He probably faced the


Syrian opposition not showing up on Wednesday and not being prepared to


sit down with the Syrian Government on Friday. Is this what happens when


you try to incorporate a country like Iran in a process like this


Geneva business, of trying to get a settlement in Syria? It is that, but


more importantly it is another man festation of a trend where power is


fragments and diffused, everybody has a little power, but nobody has


the power to create a structure and the levers that makes things happen.


The UN, we just saw what happened, the United States doesn't have all


the power, not even the Saudi, Iran, no-one seems to have the power.


Everyone has a little bit of power, no-one has the power to create the


possibility of progress. Yet, presumably on the other hand, if you


don't involve players like Iran, which has a very complicated agenda.


A complicated role in that part of the world and elsewhere. If you


don't engage them, you can't make any progress, can you? It is hard to


imagine that you have a solution to the Syria situation without Iran


being part of the conversation. And agreeing to some of the some of the


terms. That is impossible. Statement the centre of these negotiations in


Geneva is the idea of creating a transitional Government. That it is


unacceptable to the Government and to the Iranians. Do you think it was


wise to involve the Iranians overtly in these talks? That has been a


source of disagreement for the United Nations, who wants Iran in at


the start, and the United States who wants Iran in but only in certain


circumstances. It just underscores as was said, the complex politics


behind this. Everyone has a negative card, no-one has a solid hand that


actually can make progress. Ultimately we don't have the


conditions. Getting the process started is useful. Ultimately there


has to be diplomatic solution, there can't be a military solution. It


reminds me of Bosnia, we may well see years before the conditions come


together that lead to diplomatic breakthrough. And getting this


process started and trying to deal with some interim steps. How can you


narrow the conflict? How can you create safe areas where you can


deliver humanitarian assistance, then work the politics and ultimate


diplomatic solution down the road, extraordinarily complex. In the end


there are an awful lot of unshowns in all of this, aren't there? Yes,


will the's not forget these negotiations and the role of Iran in


these negotiations is going on at the same time where there is a


larger negotiation concerning Iran's nuclear problem at this point for


Iran the Mainz point is to get the economy back on stack. You know it


has been devastated by sanctions, they are willing, they are making


concessions, the Iranians have promised that they are going to move


forward. As long as they get the sanctions lowered.


But that was a process, the negotiations with Iran about their


nuclear programme. It was conducted pretty quietly. From which suddenly


a conclusion is declared to the world. It is unlike participation in


a highly visited conference like the one in Geneva? We don't know if


something like that w going on in the case of Syria. The problem with


Syria is you have many more players. It is not just the two Mainz players


and Iran the nuclear problem, the United States senior officers


meeting with the Ukrainian. There is all sorts of players having a say


son the matter. The problem is the situation is so fragments, power is


so diffused and distressed it is hard to know who they are. Even who


you talk to, even the members of the opposition in Syria who have been


invited do not represent the whole spectrum of players in the


opposition. There are some fighters there that are significant, that


have power and fire power that are not part of the conversation. Is the


United Nations the appropriate vehicle to be conducted these sorts


of talks? I think it is the only vehicle that all the players can at


least pay some attention to, or not dismiss lightly. Following up on


what was said, I also think that the politics are not necessarily clear


in Iran. Foreign ministers may well have given Ban Ki-Moon some


assurance in private that it accepted the Geneva principle,


including at least the idea of a muttal acceptable Government of


transition. But reap today was unwilling to say that publicly, and


there are all kinds of hardliners, from a public standpoint if Iran is


unwilling to say it is at least open to an idea that Al-Assad has to step


aside. That became a bridge too far not just for the UN or the United


States. It puts it above the Syria issue in terms of importance, but a


bridge too far for Iran itself. The distressing aspect of the


diplomatic shenanigans, is upon them and a conclusion of a successful


arangment to end the war, hang the lives of thousands of men, women and


children. The Syrian Civil War has been a big test of President Obama's


ability to act as international policeman. He hasn't emerged from


that test covered in glory. We have been covering the Syrian Civil War


against it began, this is the assessment.


It is time for Al-Assad to get out of the way. The only way to bring


stability and peace to Syria is for Al-Assad to step down. We We condemn


this indiscriminate killing, it is further evidence that Al-Assad has


to go. We sat by and did relatively nothing, despite what the


administration may claim. The President for a perfectly


understandable reason, really has wanted to keep this problem at arm's


length. He really has wanted it to disappear.


I have been crossing over this border into Syria for two-and-a-half


years, and seen hundreds of refugee camps. What began as a largely


peaceful process, has descended into an appalling stifle war. Killing


more than 100,000 people and displacing millions. On the eve of


the latest attempt to strike a peace deal, diplomacy is giving it another


shot. There is little chance for optimisim. Despite their rhetoric,


the US and others have failed to dislodge President Assad.


August 2011, the uprising is five months old, under pressure to


respond to Syria's crackdown on protestors, it is said Bashar


Al-Assad must go. He draws a line on chemical weapons, June 201, the


White House says the red line has been breached but no major response.


Two months later a chemical attack in Damascus kills hundreds. Obama


calls for parliament to vote for military action? The following month


Syria agrees to decommissioning the weapons.


When Barack Obama took office he wanted to reset the US relationship


with the Islamic nations. He promised a new beginning, democratic


change to the east. Syria broke the mould, its ethnic and regional


aspects made things difficult. He had powerful allies and friends on


the UN Security Council. Critics described a divided administration,


led by a President whose focus was elsewhere. I don't think it was ever


his intention that Syria would be in a humanitarian cat it is a


troughity. -- catastrophe. It was never his intention that Al-Qaeda,


of all things, should arise in the eastern part of the country. It was


never his intention that Syria would be sliding inexorably into a


peculiar form of state failure. But all of these are cons sequence,


unintended as they may be of the policy that's been pursued for the


last 33 months. What began as a peaceful protest


movement was met with an iron fist. President Obama, Cameron and the


French and German leaders all said Al-Assad must step aside. Sanctions


were imposed, embassies closed, and limited aid for rebel fighters.


Efforts to support the opposition pressure the Syrian regime and hold


the violence, and produce few results on the ground. The rebels


have now moved up because the Government's (gunfire) has been


trying to push into this area. It is a very confused situation, we know


there are snipers all around here. Because it is an urban area the


sounds ring out, but you can't tell which direction they are actually


coming from. When some in the administration


wanted to give weapons to the rebels, President Obama was said to


be disengaged. Worried that Ameri would become embroilled in the


region again. The President, I do not believe


understands the importance of American exceptionalism. I don't


think he appreciates that if there is a vacuum, because of a withdrawal


of American troops, and lack of leadership, that vacuum can be


filled by very, very bad people who do not hold the standards and values


of international conduct that we do. In foreign affairs he is persuaded


that the United States needs to spend more sustained attention to


Asia and China. Syria has not figured in his sense


of priority, so he's really trying to keep the problem at arm's length


and hopefully it would solve itself. Opposition groups supported by the


west had little power on the ground, as the conflict intensified,


increasingly radical fighters filled the vacuum, and the bloodshed


escalated. This is a simply appalling situation, the doctors


have tried to revive this young man and failed. He has just been


pronounced dead. The situation inside here is one of unbelievable


chaos. When hundreds were killed in a chemical take last August,


President Obama blamed the Syrian Government and authorised military


force. We had a long meeting with the President in the Oval office,


and this was after the latest chemical and weapons attack by


Bashar Al-Assad. He said he wanted to do three things, one degrade


Bashar Al-Assad's chemical weapons capability. Increase support to the


opposition and reverse the moment um on the battlefield -- the momentum


on the battlefield against Bashar Al-Assad. We went and told the press


what the President said. Never again did he mention those latter two. Did


you detect the President was looking for a way out or alternative. Not


just in the words he was using but the way he presented the arguments


to you and senator Graham? I may not have thought he was looking for a


way out. But I certainly detected a lack of enthusiasm. The President


changed tack, asking a reluctant Congress to vote on military action.


When Syria agreed to decommission its chemical weapons, strikes were


put on hold and the vote called off. The President had to contend with a


war-weary public and the White House believed it successfully contained


President Assad and brought Damascus to the negotiating table. I spent


the last two years travelling inside northern Syria and witnessed its


dissent into chaos. What is in effect a failed state. Now critics


of the administration would say that is partly result of the The the lack


of engagment. We want to keep institutions intact and prevent a


vacuum that is filled by forces in their own way could be as bad Assad


Al-Assad. It is through negotiated transition. One interesting


development that has a good side and a very bad side. The bad side is


what you alluded to, which is the increasing prominence of extremist


groups inside Sirria. They pose a danger today and a greater one in


the future. Once What that has done is concentrate the minds outside of


Syria. If the talks happened and America


and Russia will have brought parts of the opposition and the Government


of Syria together for the first time. That will be an achievement.


For those fighting on the other side of the border, they won't be


represented, and unlikely to be persuade by any deal. In effect the


lack of a cohesive policy and the interference of outside powers has


allowed the war and extremism to flourish, some fear it has


diminished America's standing in the region. Crucially the bloodshed and


chaos inside Syria are unlikely to abate.


That was my guests, let's return to the pictures allegedly showing


porture in Syria. We now have via Skype the barrister Jeffrey Knight,


who prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic for the European war crimes tribal.


What do you -- tribunal. What do you make of the pictures? The same as


what I make of the evidence as a whole. The inquiry team presided


over by Sir Desmond was asked to reconsider. We were asked to look at


the reliability liability or owe reliability of -- the reliability of


the evidence as if in court. We were asked if it might be acceptable in a


court in support of certain kinds of allegations. The images which are a


small selection of some 23,000 images that have already been


reviewed by the scientists on the inquiry team and of themselves


partly we understand of a similar 20,000 images, show some what


systematic treatment of dead bodies that have about them recurring


features of apparent starvation. Of being beaten, of being subject to


ligatures, not hanging, but ligatures around the neck. Also some


evidence of elect cushion. Electrocution. The patterns of


markings on the body have been removed because of security and


sensitivity to the family of the person who has died, show the


particular Security Service that it has been said by the witness, who we


found no reason to disbelieve, showed the Security Service of the


concern that dealt with the execution of the person. Other


markings on the body had been obscured for the same security and


sensitivity reasons and might give the identity of the person. And of


the faces of course that have been blanked out for reasons of the


family sensitivity. Those features of bodies coming from


detention centres and photographed in hospitals and according to the


witness there after buried in some rural location. They are the sorts


of systematic behaviour that point to not any local criminality but


towards the systematic, and the widespread and systematic conduct of


the officers of the state that would constitute a jury or panel of


judges, to accept the evidence of crimes against humanity. Thank you


very much indeed. Anyone who has ever had a teenager is familiar with


the troublesome 11.00am wake-up call. It doesn't usually follow


two-and-a-half years of sleep. On the other hand the resipant of the


alarm call isn't usually 500 million miles away. More's the pity you


might say. Officials at the space station were not sure that it would


wake up after getting his alarm, but the shuttle, Rosetta, did wake up.


All it needs to do is meet an as significant nation named 67 P, later


this year. Earlier I spoke to Professor mark -- mark McCockrin.


What was the feeling when you saw Rosetta switched on again? It is


hard to describe the attention in the room at that time. There is not


enou cliches, I don't think. The signal came a bit late, later than


we anticipated. It was coming out, I was going to say a bolt out of the


blue, it was more like a bolt out of the black. It was no context, it


wasn't like we were handing somewhere or docking with a


spacecraft. We were waiting, when the signal started building up on


the screen. The sense of rebelief was astonishing. We are slightly


reserved European, we looked around, do we hug and shout. We thought,


yes, 20 years after the mission started we will have some release


here. I don't want to rain on your parade, it implies you don't have


confidence in your technology? We had actually tried it out before we


went into hibernation. Where he We tried it out 31 months ago and a bit


before that. We had a good idea how this was going to play out. But, it


is the first time we have ever taken a spacecraft like this and cold


soaked it out in the Solar System by Jupiter. There were some elements we


are uncertain about, it could have come an hour or two hours later. And


we wouldn't have been technically worried, but would have been biting


our nails. I think we were probably 95% certain. I can say that in the


full confidence of hindsight. Here now is Dr Chris Lintott, a


cosmologyist and presenter of Sky At Night. It would have been


embarrassing if it didn't wake up? It is, it is working, and it is good


it is accepting back data about how he's doing. Didn't that look like a


staged celebration? It is a very European celebration, this is how


you tell it is not a NASA mission. You know the feeling of setting an


alarm and waking up in the middle of the night and not certain it is


going to go off. That is what I felt earlier today. For those working on


the mission for 20 years that was a big moment. You mentioned 20 years,


when the project was authorised, 1993. At that time it seemed a


sensible mission, 20 years on is it still a sensible mission? It is rare


in space science to do something never done before. This probe will


ride alongside a comet, after it sling shots around and gives off


water, gas and dust. We have never seen it happen before. We have flown


past comments but never alongside one. The chance to see things that


one hasn't before is very exciting. Let me put a penny-pinching


question, of course you are very excited, how much money is spend on


this? About are a billion euros, about the same of the # 80s as an


information metaphor. Anyone will be glad to have that kind of money to


blow on an enthusiasm? The money doesn't go to the comet, it is spent


here on earth and goes to people and technology and industries throughout


Europe, this is money well spent and we will get a fabulous ride out of


it as a bonus. What is so exciting about going to a comet, we know it


has water on it, we already know that? We do, but not whoa what type


of water. There is a Serie that all the water of the earth, including


this cup, came from comets. It will have come, we think, from comets


just like the one Rosetta will chase. Rosetta will put a land on


the comet and take a fresh sample left over from the Solar System and


tell us whether earth's water did really come from space in this way.


Isn't that common sense? We know it was volatile and hot, it had water


in the early days, we think it evaporated. We are learning the


story of our own planet and learning a history lesson for years. The


Oxford Dictionary defines a cafe as a small restaurant selling light


meals and drinks. If a new chain of coffee shops takes off, that


definition will have to be big changes. There is no charge for


coffee tea and biscuits, just the time you spend there.


To a part of Shoreditch, where Greeks come after buying up other


parts of London. You have to pass a fashion exam to get past the


borders. Up two flights of stairs in East


London. This is the happening new "joint" for your daily hit of Joe.


First collect your carefully-coursed alarm clock. I'm no Fiona Bruce, but


it is late 20th century, if I'm not mistake. The idea is you pay for the


time you spend here, not what you eat or drink. This discreet visual


aid will monitor how much of your license fee we are ploughing into


the cap. In a moment we will get a review of Scott Bentley from the


coffee-lovers magazine. That is not amazing. But first, good


old Scott is making us coffee. Good action. It is not BYO here, but it


is DIY. WTF? When people come to cafe, they buy things and they feel


some how the pressure. They have to buy new cups, every half an hour or


wise the waiter won't be happy with you. You feel guilty because you sit


too long. Here the place is so cheap and you can drink as much coffee as


you want. Ivan is the young Russian entrepeneur behind the Black Cafe.


There is several in his homeland? The consumption system puts you in a


position of someone like a servant and someone as consumers. In fact we


are all equal, we would love to speak to each other like we are.


Like John and sellia or someone. Sylvia.


What is to stop one naveling all of s -- snaffleing it all. We read the


tea loaves. If I do something for you I want you to do it back to me.


In fairness, fairness trumping everything else, it trumps money. I


guess in this case the act of giving people an environment where they can


be free and help themselves, means there is an onus on those to respect


that, therefore they return the favour and it is fair. We have run


up a tab of 6p in the cafe that charges by the minute.


It is like you have gone round to yourian's for a cup of tea. It is


great, we don't have a lot, instead of renting a studio and something, I


would come here. It is a niche market, it is great to see creative


people around. It is for people like us, young and cool and yeah, that


has stunned you! What about the man from caffeine magazine, can he see


this pay per minute coffee shop being something that will catch off?


It is a place to meet, friends, family, business aGanttances, that


happens everywhere, I don't think there is too much of a problem. I


think the coolness of it is definitely working here. Here Here


in Shoreditch, but a lot is down to the deck cor as well. As the --


decor as well. As many say, been there done that.


Steve Smith living near the edge there. That is all we have time for